Our Films / Our Scripts

[paranoid-knight2008]

So Veoh spent three days uploading it to 77% before aborting it. So fuck that.

Have to upload to Youtube now. Hopefully not in chunks. Will update what is happening as soon as I can.

Sorry for the wait.

[paranoid-knight2008]

Thanks for moving it the right place, guys.

[paranoid-knight2008]

Here's the film, guys!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izmNPQGfQLU

Enjoy! And please comment/review if you watch. Thanks!

[paranoid-knight2008]

No Comments at all, guys?

[Grand Illusion]

No Comments at all, guys?

I stopped watching at around 5:20 when I couldn't understand the dialogue. I'm sorry, but the most important thing to know about low-budget indies is that people will forgive bad picture, but not bad sound.

[paranoid-knight2008]

No Comments at all, guys?

I stopped watching at around 5:20 when I couldn't understand the dialogue. I'm sorry, but the most important thing to know about low-budget indies is that people will forgive bad picture, but not bad sound.

I know it may sound like I'm just kind of stretching it, but... I intended for the sound to be awful. :-"

[paranoid-knight2008]

Site with some details about the production and some of the comment recieved so far.. http://www.wix.com/dougreese0911/cleaners-website

[domino harvey]

It sounds like you recorded your sound with in-camera, which means it is unlistenable and hopelessly amateur. If you want to even salvage this, at least dub it with your cast and a noise-reducing microphone. Of what I saw, let me stress the importance of getting real or attractive actors, dressing your actors, set design, editing, and where you put and move your camera in addition to the need for a separate sound recording device for your next shoot.

[mfunk9786]

I don't mean to sound like an awful person by pointing this out, but you need to try to keep in mind what you'd like to see in a film. If you shoot a protracted scene of people playing cards, for example - you have to think of it outside of yourself. Would I enjoy it if FAVORITE FILMMAKER X had this scene in their film? If they framed their shot this way? If they held on their shot this way? Rather than replicate your favorite filmmaker like some do, just keep their sensibility in the back of your mind when making decisions on what you're doing. And if you feel like something you're doing flies in the face of their sensibility, ask yourself whether that's because you feel it's part of your own unique voice or because you're doing something wrong. Lather, rinse, repeat as you go along.

[AlexHansen]

It sounds like you recorded your sound with in-camera, which means it is unlistenable and hopelessly amateur.

Decent audio can be captured with an on-camera mic, you just have to put some effort into it or at least be conscious about the sound you are capturing as you go. Eliminating elements like music that can be mixed in later can go a long way. But your point still stands in this particular case.

[paranoid-knight2008]

My use of sound in the film was completely intentional. Previous films I've done had horrible sound design because I wasn't really aware of what it takes to make a film sound so good. My lack of audio equipment from a professional standpoint made me want to work the mumbled/messy audio sound design my camera makes into the film's style. I intentionally put the effort to make the music blasting on the television, the fans in the house, the air conditioner... a lot of mumbling from the actors... whatnot. All of it, I wanted to use to capture the state of minds with the two main characters. I also wanted to use the scattered, jarring editing to also capture that feeling.

[domino harvey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXU7EVXs2A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grand Illusion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXU7EVXs2A

Sorry I said anything.

[paranoid-knight2008]

*sigh*

[paranoid-knight2008]

Some reviews I've received:

What I find most interesting about Cleaners is that the tension is palpable (there obviously has to be because of the first shot alone), but from that moment on, all we get is the sense of bleakness that stretches its way to the very end. Most of these moments, the small, almost insignificant moments help add to this sense of dread. After all, what would be the point of all of these actions if they didn’t play into factor later on in the story?

From the beginning, the feeling of aimlessness is more than evident based on how the two leads carry themselves in cleaning their house and taking their drugs. What is the importance of the cleaning and in taking said drugs? For some reason, it looks more like there isn’t a point to it. These characters come off as so dead on the inside that everything they do seems so trivial. Even when they [Spoiler:] decide to kill Jeremiah’s brother, there is hardly that foreboding sense of wrongdoing. While there is always that tension in the air, the atmosphere helps in adding that sense of nothing-ness to the story.

The two leads speak with more than just the few lines they are given. With each action, there is something going on in their actions and motives. However, we, as an audience are not always sure what that might be. This helps in the surroundings set up in the surprisingly short 69 minutes.

All of this adds up to a great budget-less film. While far from perfect (the sound leaves something to be desired, because most of the few lines said are lost in the noise around), the effort is obviously there and the dedication thrown into the small nuances of the story help in making this a compelling and bleak movie

low-key in a way that’s reminiscent of early Richard Linklater or David Gordon Green and featuring a sexy, self-assured performance from Danelle Kjellman. Sure, you can argue there’s not much to this film but it isn’t trying to say too much, it’s a slice-of-life similar to David Gordon Green’s “George Washington” and it’s pretty steller, with a shocking plot twist towards the end that seems not to phase the film’s protagonist couple in the least. Good job, Mr. Reese!

Cleaners (2011) is a highly nuanced and extremely thought-provoking piece, where mood and atmosphere play the major roles. The director, Reese, captivates the audience, allowing them to intimately experience the isolation of the main characters through the voyeur-esque cinematography. The acting is very good when considering the inexperience of the actors. Only major drawback, relative to the budget, is the sound which can be very distracting at times.

Not gonna lie I thought this was gonna suck big time because of there being no budget and the sound being so amateurish but I was surprised. The acting was natural and real sometimes. Your direction low key and moody. Too bad you can’t send this one into a festival or something. Its very unsettling.

Online film critic Dustin Putman e-mailed me:

For a film that was made with no money and few resources, “Cleaners” is impressive, indeed. Director Douglas Reese displays a true filmmaker’s eye with a strong hold on his mise en scene, and he gets naturalistic, unaffected performances out of his two central actors, Jeremiah Hall and Denelle Kjellman. They are not particularly likable—and aren’t supposed to be—but the performers ably draw the viewer into their bleak lifestyle. A young couple being destroyed by their drug habit, they aimlessly wander through their days with few goals outside of tidying up their home. For all the time they spend on cleaning up, however, they don’t seem to make any headway, their residence remaining a place of sadness and clutter. It will continue to stay like this as long as they are trapped in their own addictions—not just with drugs, but with each other. Sadly, any hopes of recovery dim the second they begin to plot an unthinkable crime destined to only send them straight for oblivion. “Cleaners” is hurt by some of its technical shortcomings, particularly poor sound that often renders dialogue indecipherable and background music too abrasive. It is a testament to director Reese’s handle of the material, though, that the film still works. With a higher budget and better resources next time, Reese is destined to only grow. Already, he’s an up-and-coming filmmaker to watch. “Cleaners” isn’t a message drama that spells everything out for its audience, but it does have something to say all the same—and says it loud and clear through memorably grimy imagery that paints an alarming picture of disillusionment and youthful decay.

Reminds me of Bela Tarr in its banality. Very interesting debut.

I won’t lie and say that I love the art-house style of film-making, however Douglas Reese has crafted “Cleaners” in such a way that I’m compelled to finish what I started. Those with little patience may shy away after a few minutes due to the distorted sound and look of the film, but those that stick with it are in for a treat. It’s not for the faint of heart, but the ambience that Reese creates pulls the viewers right in, mimicking the state of mind of his protagonists (for lack of a better word). He doesn’t try and make them sympathetic, and without spoiling the ending, I’ll just say there isn’t some kind of redemption for them either.
What’s astonishing is the performances by the two leads, both of whom aren’t trained actors, but their performances are so real, and I had to close my eyes during one of the most wrenching parts of the film involving a knife. The characters are powerfully real.
The way Reese has shot the film reminds me of Lars von Trier films, it’s not visually stunning, but it’s visually gripping. The film deals with taboo topics such as substance abuse, rape, and murder, and isn’t afraid to shy away from the gritty aspects of them all. Most times there’s a “film” that’s being shared online by some user on IMDb or a similar site, it’s usually a terrible home film trying to mimic Quentin Tarantino, but Reese has molded his own style here and doesn’t make excuses for what he’s done – if someone can’t stand the sound? They don’t have to watch it. Film quality too bad for them? They don’t have to watch it. But as I’ve said before, if you sit through it, you’re in for something special. Douglas Reese is one to watch out for.
8/10

I’ve had a really bad cold in recently, which sucks, but at least it’s allowed me to stay in bed the last few days and read and watch movies! Anyway, I just finished watching your film, Doug! I’m really in no condition to write up anything resembling a coherent review, but I can share a few thoughts.

I really think the film manages to do a number of interesting things. Despite obviously being ultra low-budget (I did sometimes have trouble hearing what the characters were saying), you have a sure sense of tone and manage to utilize a small space admirably well. I also thought you made a number of interesting cutting decisions that occasionally gave the film a sharp, disjoined rhythm that worked well. I think it’s very gutsy the way you constantly flirt with banality (I’m assuming this is intentional?). I was reminded strongly of Jeanne Dielman, in which seemingly quotidian household tasks are performed with almost obsessive meticulousness and repetitiveness, only to culminate in a shocking act of violence. I like how the feeling of menace is slowly developed, with respect to the characters as well (as they start to use drugs and say casually racist things). And the murder scene is quite harrowing. Well done.

Now if I may be critical for a minute, I wonder if perhaps the film isn’t a little too short or too long. I think if it were shorter, it might have a bit more punch. Conversely, that Akerman-style hyper-realism needs a lot of time to develop in order to flesh out those psychological abstractions. As it is, I found the motivations of the characters kind of murky. And the dialogue sounded a bit tinny at times, though that could very well be a reflection of the way some young people really talk. [Spoiler:] Also, I thought the performance of the brother being killed (was that you, Doug? If so, I really apologize) was a bit on the weak side (too overtly off-putting?) compared to the two main actors, who were pretty natural, particularly the girl.

Anyway, I don’t know if any of that makes any sense. I usually never critique the work of friends or people I know, because it’s a process that’s awkward and time-consuming and generally ends in tears, LOL. But you seemed hungry for feedback, so there you go! More than anything, I really respect anyone who can take his or her cinephilia a step further, and do something creative. It’s fabulous! You should submit your stuff to festivals or something. I think you’re talented, and I’m sure your work will only get better when you have more resources at your disposal. Good luck!

The lack of budget and amateur nature of the film make it that much more harrowing. This was a disturbing but powerful movie!

[Giap]

Think about at least getting hold of a pro microphone and plugging it into your camera, as others have suggested. Overlapping sound and muddy dialogue as an artistic choice is one thing (eg. Michael Cimino), but crappy microphone quality and placement sticks out like a sore thumb. Think about the light - even if you can't afford professional film lights, you can still use practical bulbs and manipulate the light with polyboard, or just be more selective about the angles that you shoot. If you're shooting video then make an extra effort to protect your highlights. Try to get every shot in focus. Think about if and how the camera should be moving. Or - just work with an experienced DoP, who would help you with much of the above; there are lots of folks out there on the edges of the industry who will work for nothing or very little, and they often come with their own camera too (I imagine you'd like to shoot on a RED). Perhaps bring in an independent editor too, or set yourself this exercise: see how short/tight you can make the film and still retain coherence. Cut it down to less than 5 minutes if you can - not with a view to a final product, but because you'll learn a lot about the rhythms and possibilities of editing along the way.

Can't comment on the performances / script / other, b/c the above issues made me turn it off after a few minutes, which you should know is how most if not all festival programmers and sales agents will react, given the dozens if not hundreds of items that come through their door every day. The bottom line is that you need to raise your game technically if you want to take this further, because, like it or not, film professionals have very short attention spans and are extremely unforgiving. If/when you do have something of a higher technical standard, don't make it public online because you'll blow your festival options.

[AlexHansen]

paranoid-knight2008, I did go and watch the clip from the film that you've got up and found it more agreeable than the beginning of the film proper, but not enough to give the whole thing a go. I'm also finding it hard to continue on with Raya Martin's Now Showing for similar "amateur" aesthetics, so you aren't alone.

Anyways, I wanted to put up a link to the short I just finished up: I sometimes think of you - I started out with the intentions of making a feature, but for a variety of reasons/excuses, I ended up with a short. It bears little to no resemblance to what I had planned, which isn't a bad thing. It has its bright spots but overall I'm not sold on it (feel free to convince me otherwise; or confirm my suspicions).

And if y'all will allow me, I'd like to point everyone in the direction of a short I already linked to: Three Nights of a Dreamer - this is probably the favorite thing I've done thus far. A hodge-podge of images I collected over the course of a couple few months and strung into a first-person stream-of-conscious type of deal. I didn't really give it a proper intro when I posted it originally, so I hope you'll take a gander at it now. At the very least there's some good tunes.

Any thoughts, comments, or criticisms are greatly appreciated, especially about the new short. Feedback on that has been incredibly sparse, which might be enough feedback in and of itself.

[karmajuice]

I'll confirm your suspicions on the first piece. The photography isn't bad, but the editing is staid. The whole films feels lethargic, but the lethargy doesn't accomplish anything. We see a whole lot of what I presume is internal turmoil, but it's never expressed in any meaningful way. We see some kind of resolution at the end, but we have no concept of what leads to that resolution, or why we needed it in the first place.

Three Nights of a Dreamer I rather like. The work as a whole doesn't convey much -- it's a mood piece comprised of scavenged pieces, and an uneven one at that -- but it has moments which work. The editing in the lightning sequence is very effective and I like the sequence that looks like smoke under the stars (though I assume it's actually one of the auroras, shot in black and white?). The rapidly edited bit around 5:50 reminds me superficially of Brakhage's "home movies". The last sequence with the mist coming through the evergreens is the best, though: its patience, almost a meditation; how the forest slowly succumbs to the mist.

Like I said, you'd have a hard time convincing me that it's a cohesive, meaningful short film. But as an exploration of texture, mood, and visual music, it sometimes works. It's a sort of study or exercise in cinema style, the equivalent of a painter doing a study in color or sketches of the human form.

[MichaelB]

Can't comment on the performances / script / other, b/c the above issues made me turn it off after a few minutes, which you should know is how most if not all festival programmers and sales agents will react, given the dozens if not hundreds of items that come through their door every day. The bottom line is that you need to raise your game technically if you want to take this further, because, like it or not, film professionals have very short attention spans and are extremely unforgiving.

Back in the days when I helped run a cinema that made a point of showing outstanding new shorts before the main feature, I drew the short straw of having to vet the various submissions prior to shortlisting for the benefit of my boss - and to say that I concur with this is a major understatement.

With features, I'd usually allow 20-25 minutes to grab my attention before contemplating walking out or switching off, but with shorts I generally gave them five maximum: not because I have a limited attention span, but because I simply had too many to watch in addition to my normal work chores. In any case, as George Bernard Shaw famously said after being caught out rejecting a play without reading the whole thing (the author deliberately stuck two late pages together), "you don't have to eat a whole egg to know it's rotten".

I particularly remember a short that came with a long list of advance apologies for technical shortcomings (and structural shortcomings: it was "primarily intended as a mood piece", apparently), all of which merely primed me to expect something painfully amateurish - which turned out to be the case.

Deliberately poor technique is fine if you already have a reputation - if Michael Mann makes a film with lousy sound, I'll assume upfront that he's doing it for a reason. Otherwise, though, it just makes it harder to break through: you'd have thought Guy Maddin could get away with any technical shortcoming imaginable, but his first feature Tales from the Gimli Hospital was rejected from the Toronto Film Festival on the grounds of poor sound - and Maddin also protested that it was meant to sound like that. Obviously, we all believe him now, but I can absolutely see where the Toronto programmers were coming from.

[AlexHansen]

Thanks for the comments, karmajuice. Lethargic is an excellent way to describe that particular piece. DOA would be another. It wasn't sitting right with me after the first round of shooting but rather than chuck the whole thing, I figured I'd see what I'd end up with. Whatever that may be.

And your thoughts pretty much mirror my own on Three Nights. It doesn't add up to anything, and some parts work better than others, but it has some nice moments to it. Though I'm not sure how well it'd work without the music. To pull the curtain back, the smoke and stars was just smoke and dust caught in the light from a window, with the color pulled out of it and the whites and blacks adjusted to get it to look B&W (and the dust to look more like stars). I love that footage of the mist. It worked pretty well as its own thing but putting it at the end of the short just seemed like a perfect way to use it. As you said, almost a meditation.

Thanks again.

[Grand Illusion]

paranoid, I saw your "review" on FilmThreat. They barely reviewed the film.

[paranoid-knight2008]

paranoid, I saw your "review" on FilmThreat. They barely reviewed the film.

I know, which kinda hurts.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

First third of the film completed in Katowice.
Here's some of the images collaged for the website.
http://www.shortsupplymovie.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From now on it's proceeding by stealth and tugging at people's sleeves to get the finance to put together the Glasgow and Warsaw shoots.

[puxzkkx]

I am currently editing my first short. With this I wanted to experiment with process and have it reflect the piece's themes of knowledge, communication and empathy, especially across age gaps. My idea is that 'true' empathy is impossible - you can't truly know someone or experience their inner life without being them - but the point of life is to try anyway. By doing what we did for this film I feel that we are 'forcing empathy' and making an attempt at creating communication between strangers of wildly different ages and backgrounds. Not that I expect this intent will come out in the film, but I am happy for the result to open up a space for interpretation and discussion for the audience.

Anyway, what we did with this was go to several locations around the Wellington, NZ metro and ask strangers between 18-25 and 50 or over to give us, out of context, a line from the most important conversation they'd ever had. We got almost 500 of these in all, and I pared the haul down to 38 per age group. We took the resulting quotes, put them in little bags, and went out onto the street again with shooting equipment, stopping passersby in the 18-25 and 50+ age ranges and having them recite a randomly selected line from the opposite age group directly into camera with a minimum of affect.

With this project I knew that I would have very little control - I could shape the project in some ways but 90% of the result would be up to the public. Still, I think I've got a rough cut I'm happy with. We are just sorting out some issues with the sound and I am going to rearrange the assembly a bit - I'm aiming for a trajectory of mood going from non-sequitur and getting darker before a 'denouement', alternating between young-person-old-quote and old-person-young-quote - and I'll be good to go.

I'm planning to send this to a couple festivals entirely for shits and giggles - it's only $60 to submit to Cannes! Because what have I got to lose - but if none of that pans out, which I don't expect it to, I'm going to go the gallery route and offer this as a video installation, which is the kind of project it is in essence.

This was my first effort as a director and although it was an unorthodox way of shooting it was a hugely rewarding experience, and watching the first rough cut gave just such a special feeling. I have a couple other shorts I'm organising resources for at the moment - I'd like this project to be part of a sort of triptych of experimental shorts, the other two experimenting with a) narrative and b) form.

[Dylan]

.